It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:21 am
  

All times are UTC + 1 hour





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:46 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: N.E England
A response from the RRF to the Y1 Phonics Screening Test is now on the RRF website


http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/RRF%20respons ... 0check.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm
Posts: 124
I haven't even got to the end of the response yet and feel the need to post on the subject of "non-words". I read: "Non words are words that do not have meaning like ‘mif’ or ‘chup’." How many real words can you think of that end with "-if"? This is a spelling that I don't think exists in English. I know Debbie has commented before on "illegal" spellings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm
Posts: 3889
The '-if' spelling at the end of a word can't be regarded as illegal because of the common word 'if'.

Jenny C.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Berkshire
teejay100000 wrote:
How many real words can you think of that end with "-if"? This is a spelling that I don't think exists in English.

A quick look in my dictionary finds the word "kif" (also "kef"), 1. a state of dreamy euphoria. 2. any drug, esp. marijuana, that produces this state when smoked; also the acronym "GIF" , for graphic interchange format. Not in the dictionary, but I recall the product name "Jif", a scouring powder.

_________________
"To measure is to know." ― Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm
Posts: 3889
Yes, there are the examples cited by kenm, and also aperitif, motif, massif and serif - probably all from French, but nevertheless regarded as English words.

Just as the existence of two different phonemes can be established on the basis of only one minimal pair, I think it may be the case that a spelling is 'legal' even if there is only one word embodying it.

Jenny C.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:47 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Posts: 3372
Location: Berkshire
LOL! 'Jif' is now called 'Cif', Ken!

I wonder how many people think it's called /kif/?

I don't like the new name at all. I can't imagine what prompted the change!!!! :roll:

_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
http://www.syntheticphonics.com
http://www.phonicsinternational.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm
Posts: 124
:grin: As I posted I knew you would find some! At least they were obscure French words and that daft name for kitchen cleaner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Berkshire
teejay100000 wrote:
:grin: As I posted I knew you would find some! At least they were obscure French words and that daft name for kitchen cleaner.

The original name wasn't daft.

"Jif: your worktops spotless in a jiffy!"

_________________
"To measure is to know." ― Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm
Posts: 124
Then why wasn't it called Jiff? :grin:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:45 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Posts: 4846
Location: Exeter UK
I thought it would be useful to have a direct link here to Jenny Chew's conference talk paper about the Y1 reading check:

The Year 1 Phonics Screening Check:
What will it be like? How can we be sure our children succeed?

http://rrf.org.uk/pdf/conf2011/RRF_Conf ... 0_Chew.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:54 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Posts: 4846
Location: Exeter UK
In her paper, Jenny wrote:

Quote:
If you’ve read the Sheffield Hallam evaluation, you may have noticed that nearly three-quarters of schools involved in the pilot said that they taught children to use a range of cueing strategies as well as phonics. Those of us who have nailed our colours firmly to the phonics mast would probably expect that when we see the detailed analysis it will turn out that schools using just phonics for word identification have done better than schools using mixed methods. I gather that this is something the DfE is researching and if the findings turn out as I would expect it would create a strong rationale for schools to pursue a more systematic approach to phonics teaching.

I’ll finish with a comment from a teacher which is quoted in the Sheffield Hallam evaluation:
‘Very difficult test for Year One pupils because it's not something they are familiar with doing. So we
are used to asking them to decode words in context. In books to apply their knowledge of the picture
cues, the context and so on.’ (p. 50)


It does appear that the message re. the DfE's revised criteria for synthetic phonics programmes has not been made clearly or strongly enough. Will school inspectors be trained to pick up on this?
Quote:
(E)nsure that as pupils move through the early stages of acquiring phonics, they are invited to practise by reading texts which are entirely decodable for them, so that they experience success and learn to rely on phonemic strategies.

It is important that texts are of the appropriate level for children to apply and practise the phonic knowledge and skills that they have learnt. Children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.

http://dfe.gov.uk/schools/teachingandle ... honic-work


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:21 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: N.E England
I flagged this up on a different thread a few days ago and got absolutely no reaction, which I found surprising.
( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4989 )

It actually comes from the Ofsted training document but the Level descriptor I quote will be in DfES materials used by teachers to inform their teaching.

This is the description of what a L2 reader is expected to be capable of:

Quote:
Level 2
Pupils’ reading of simple texts shows understanding and is generally accurate. They express opinions about major events or ideas in stories, poems and non-fiction. They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning.



They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning

If this is in a level descriptor it will be taken as a necessary thing to be taught and as endorsement of multi-cueing strategies. I am :shock: How about everyone else?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm
Posts: 3889
I did take your posting seriously, Maizie, but felt that I'd better read the OFSTED documents properly before responding - i.e.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/gett%20...%20ding-early
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/read%20...%20n-literacy

I've read the first carefully, but have only skimmed the second. They both have the same publication date (21 October 2011), so it's very puzzling that the one for younger children says that something no longer applies whereas the one for older children implies that it does still apply. I'll see what I can find out.

Jenny C.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:54 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Posts: 2970
Location: N.E England
What shocked me, Jenny, was the fact that the extract I have quoted comes direct from the DfE/ QCDA descriptors for L2. They can be found here:

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stage ... index.aspx

Now, I can see that it might be argued that the use of 'other cues' is for comprehension rather than word identification, but somehow I don't think so ;-)

The question in my mind is, is this just left over from the old NLS descriptors and no-body has noticed the inconsistency, or, was that sentence left there deliberately?

Does whoever prepared the Ofsted training materials not see the inconsistency?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm
Posts: 3889
The following is my take on it, Maizie - I haven't yet tried to get any clarification from anyone else.

The OFSTED document relating to Years 3-11 refers to the bit you quote as being from 'the current National Curriculum', which is presumably the one that has been in force for some years. I think this is being revised, but the revision has not yet replaced the 'current' version. Legislation is probably needed before this can happen.

What puzzles me, therefore, is not that multi-cueing is still there in black and white but rather that there is inconsistency between two OFSTED documents published on the same day. The one for the years below Y3 quotes the bit you quote but prefaces it with this:

'Although the National Curriculum is supposed to provide broad benchmarks for attainment at Key Stages 1 and 2, it does not now reflect the government’s expectations that children should be taught to decode words using phonics as the prime approach. The current attainment target for reading at Level 2 says: ‘They [pupils] use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning.'

So this pre-Y3 document quotes the multi-cueing bit but implies that there is a problem with it, whereas the Years 3-11 document quotes it without any implication of a problem.

Jenny C.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
greenmiles v1.1 designed by CodeMiles Team -TemplatesDragon-.